Deep 6 FaWtL


Off-Topic Discussions

156,201 to 156,250 of 236,422 << first < prev | 3120 | 3121 | 3122 | 3123 | 3124 | 3125 | 3126 | 3127 | 3128 | 3129 | 3130 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Looking for a good multiplayer rpg/cooperative game to play with my family with our Wii or PS3. Any recommendations?

opens mouth, inhales

Quote:
Doesn't need to be strictly rated-G, but we want to avoid gratuitous nudity, sexy-times, and culturally maladjusted language. Thanks!

closes mouth, coughs awkwardly


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Freehold, whatever deity you pissed off you need to go apologize to right now.

WTF! Aww, H**l no. D**n, waste of a good pizza.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

OH COME ON! REALLY?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, Freehold. But I really can't stand marshmallows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That... that exchange... I think there was a miscommunication, there, John. :)

(Freehold was incensed, not by your disgust for the pizza, but the fact that he happened to be naked while trying...

Quote:
to avoid gratuitous nudity,


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like incense on my pizza.

For that matter a naked pizza sounds... wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Looking for a good multiplayer rpg/cooperative game to play with my family with our Wii or PS3. Any recommendations? Doesn't need to be strictly rated-G, but we want to avoid gratuitous nudity, sexy-times, and culturally maladjusted language. Thanks!

So... this is a weird and difficult question to answer, because I only have the Wii, and it's not exactly known for the prevalence of RPGs.

So... I'm going to ignore that part of the request. (Sorry!) That means no Okami or Legend of Zelda or Last Story (excellent games, but pretty strictly single-player, unless you're interested in running different "tasks" to different players - but that's just handing off the controls, or doing things like sketching maps or notes, not real gameplay; as an aside, an actual multiplayer RPG is very rare, and not something that comes to mind, immediately).

Multiplayer fun (and anarchy):
- Kirby's Epic Yarn (max of two players)
- - cooperative, but only "sort of" two players: Mario Galaxy games allow a second player to collect star bits and freeze enemies for a short time while they're on screen, but they have no character or real agency beyond this

- New Super Mario Brothers Wii (max of four players, this is anarchy)

- Lego Harry Potter (sadly, it's glitched in the Wii version, so you can't get past the Basilisk - at least, my copy is - but I hear the PS3 version patched this problem)

- Lego Batman 2 (suffers from similar issues to the above; again, I think it got patched in the PS3)

Beyond that, I got nothin'. Sorry!

Maybe this will help?

From a very quick scan, this is unfortunatly gone ('cause it shut its doors), but the Sims games, maybe the various Final Fantasy games (I know nothing about Crystal Bearers, Echoes of Time, or Chocobo's Dungeon, but there are links to them that I haven't read, and they kind of sound like the off-brand FFs that might try something like that), Fire Emblam could be a multiplayer game (each of you claim 1-3 characters, and you always have at least one of each of your characters in each battle, and each player makes any in-character decision for that character), LotG:TOoG'H (see the FFs for my opinion), the various Marvel games (family friendly look, also, and a third; I've heard good things but never played them), this one has 'Team' in the title, and I liked the film, and I looked long enough to see this one had multiplayer, and the film was decent.

So... hope that helps!


John Napier 698 wrote:
Oh, okay.

:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, I like posting during the day much better than trying to post in the middle of the night. Much easier to hold a conversation. I think I'll do it this way from now on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Looking for a good multiplayer rpg/cooperative game to play with my family with our Wii or PS3. Any recommendations? Doesn't need to be strictly rated-G, but we want to avoid gratuitous nudity, sexy-times, and culturally maladjusted language. Thanks!

So... this is a weird and difficult question to answer, because I only have the Wii, and it's not exactly known for the prevalence of RPGs.

So... I'm going to ignore that part of the request. (Sorry!) That means no Okami or Legend of Zelda or Last Story (excellent games, but pretty strictly single-player, unless you're interested in running different "tasks" to different players - but that's just handing off the controls, or doing things like sketching maps or notes, not real gameplay; as an aside, an actual multiplayer RPG is very rare, and not something that comes to mind, immediately).

Multiplayer fun (and anarchy):
- Kirby's Epic Yarn (max of two players)
- - cooperative, but only "sort of" two players: Mario Galaxy games allow a second player to collect star bits and freeze enemies for a short time while they're on screen, but they have no character or real agency beyond this

- New Super Mario Brothers Wii (max of four players, this is anarchy)

- Lego Harry Potter (sadly, it's glitched in the Wii version, so you can't get past the Basilisk - at least, my copy is - but I hear the PS3 version patched this problem)

- Lego Batman 2 (suffers from similar issues to the above; again, I think it got patched in the PS3)

Beyond that, I got nothin'. Sorry!

Maybe this will help?

From a very quick scan, this is unfortunatly gone ('cause it shut its doors), but the Sims games, maybe the various Final Fantasy games (I know nothing about...

ooh! Ooh! Castle crashers!!

And dungeons and dragons arcade is on xbone!


Are... either of those Wii or PS3?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to require a PC. I google searched D&DA and it seems to be available from Steam.

Edit: However, Castle Crashers is available on the PS3.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Civilization Revolutions is available for the PS3.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
[ooh! Ooh! Castle crashers!!

OMG! Castle Crashers is such violent maniacal fun! But it violates so many of the requirements...

  • A teensy bit-o-gallons-o-lakes-o-blood
  • Poop-propelled deer
  • Pooping owls
  • More poop humor
  • More blood
  • And the list goes on...

  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tacticslion wrote:
    ...as an aside, an actual multiplayer RPG is very rare, and not something that comes to mind, immediately).

    I know, right? It's odd, considering that so many rpgs are D&Dish, and so involve parties of varied characters questing about together. I'm playing Dragon Age: Origins atm, and I can't even tell ya off the top of my head how many characters make up my party! I wonder if it's some aspect of rpgs that makes multiplay hard to design, or if multiplay just hasn't taken off within the sub-genre culturally...


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    It's for the best no one can join me in Skyrim. If it's got a blast radius I will use it.

    Not to mention my tentacle squirting staff.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tacticslion wrote:
    ...as an aside, an actual multiplayer RPG is very rare, and not something that comes to mind, immediately).
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    I know, right? It's odd, considering that so many rpgs are D&Dish, and so involve parties of varied characters questing about together. I'm playing Dragon Age: Origins atm, and I can't even tell ya off the top of my head how many characters make up my party! I wonder if it's some aspect of rpgs that makes multiplay hard to design, or if multiplay just hasn't taken off within the sub-genre culturally...

    It is very rare.

    My guess is that it's the cultural thing.

    Western video/computer RPGs were originally developed for low-end small consoles with poor memory and little to no rapid communication - sure two ports were even part of the NES system, but that was for simple, competitive games, mostly, and went very under-used, and forget about people lugging around their Desktop computers to do stuff.

    JRPGs, however, developed out of the same companies (and thus incorporated the same styles) that developed eroge games (a genre that really isn't meant to be, ah, "shared" with others, while playing), or who built things like, you know, the NES (and so were limited in the same way).

    These two facets also deeply affected who, exactly, the target audiences were: mostly people who played video/computer games by themselves.

    For JRPGs, this has remained solid fact - the entire concept of the genre is to build a solid (if occasionally multi-pronged) singular story that revolves around you and your own personal group. There is almost always a singular protagonist, and it's almost always the one character.

    For Western RPGs, this has opened up a bit. Things like Dark Souls which, not exactly cooperative, permit multiple people to work with (or afflict) other players.

    But both suffer from the same problem: they are on the rails games with a single-player-exclusive narrative that does not permit any but the key character(s) to grow as the single player desires as a whole.

    I think there are technical and philosophical(?) difficulties that crop up, too: how does a game adjust for other characters/players dropping in/out at the same time, and how do you account for general grinding? How do you deal with non-rails story decisions? (This last has generally been handled as, "error: unrecognized token; please proceed to the route"-type programming - a much easier programming decision than the alternative, which isn't really too terribly viable, in most cases.)

    Still, I think it can be done, and I think it's an idea who's time as definitely come. I... really want a game like this now. Preferably with the whole level-up system, grinding-permissive, but with a 75% gain for non-active party (maximum three level difference?), or maybe a general "pool" of XP to be shared among the group that can be a maximum of three levels (or so) apart, or something.

    Certainly, given that creatures can level based on your level; I would suggest their levels can be altered based on how many people are in your party, as well.

    Make the multiplayer optional with both online- and off- functionality (another idea that seems shocking lacking, over-all, in games in general), and I suspect you've suddenly sealed yourself a solid chunk of the population as customers.

    ... dang it, I want this game, now.

    (Also, an FFT-style official 4E-adaptation game (ala NWN for 3/3.5), because that would be so freakin' cool, instead of the dross diablo-clone we got...)

    EDIT: A couple times. Man, a few of the things I said up there were... confused. So, here's hoping that clarifies things, and I didn't lose any more words on my way to stumbling over what I was trying to say.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    Tacticslion wrote:
    ...as an aside, an actual multiplayer RPG is very rare, and not something that comes to mind, immediately).
    I know, right? It's odd, considering that so many rpgs are D&Dish, and so involve parties of varied characters questing about together. I'm playing Dragon Age: Origins atm, and I can't even tell ya off the top of my head how many characters make up my party! I wonder if it's some aspect of rpgs that makes multiplay hard to design, or if multiplay just hasn't taken off within the sub-genre culturally...

    Well, speaking as a programmer, any multiplayer game that is not online is inherently difficult. Not only does it have to keep track of character data for more than one character, but it must also process a player's actions within a reasonable amount of time. And since console platforms generally aren't multiprocessors, the console's processor must handle everything related to player action. And this introduces lag, where gameplay slows noticeably.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tacticslion wrote:
    ...as an aside, an actual multiplayer RPG is very rare, and not something that comes to mind, immediately).
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    I know, right? It's odd, considering that so many rpgs are D&Dish, and so involve parties of varied characters questing about together. I'm playing Dragon Age: Origins atm, and I can't even tell ya off the top of my head how many characters make up my party! I wonder if it's some aspect of rpgs that makes multiplay hard to design, or if multiplay just hasn't taken off within the sub-genre culturally...
    John Napier 698 wrote:
    Well, speaking as a programmer, any multiplayer game that is not online is inherently difficult. Not only does it have to keep track of character data for more than one character, but it must also process a player's actions within a reasonable amount of time. And since console platforms generally aren't multiprocessors, the console's processor must handle everything related to player action. And this introduces lag, where gameplay slows noticeably.

    While this is totally true, and something I certainly appreciate, it feels exceptionally weird to me that it's done time and again in titles like, say, the Lego series, or, even more, in MMORPGs (which don't really replicate the "feel" of table-top, Western, or J-RPGs), but that same functionality hasn't been ported over to non-Massive titles, or things that aren't (for the most part) party games.

    Especially considering that, for many years, and preferred by some still, the turn-based, or ATB systems more or less cover you on that - with the one, each person has a set point at which they input their own desires; with the other, each person has a specified time limit.

    On the other-hand, with games like FF15's gameplay, everything is happening more or less simultaneously, so there's no wait or lag time at all.

    As for the choice menu systems, newer systems, like the Wii U, have a screen that often differs from what's displayed on the main screen - this would be a perfect method of managing issues like "who is looking at what cursor" that might crop up otherwise (though, of course, simple screen rearrangement, and color-coding would handle that for less technically advanced systems).

    I'm not saying this to undersell the difficulty, but rather to point out that most of the physical limitations seem to have been more or less handled.

    Also, we've a lot of multiplayer action-based non-RPG games, and action-based RPG games, so it seems weird that the two haven't really crossed, as it were.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    However, a solution is possible. Let us consider that modern consoles have communications ports. If there is a standard for such ports, such as Ethernet, then not only could the consoles be linked through a router, they could be connected to a computer. The computer could act as a Server, providing game data to each connected console. And if the game data is identical across multiple console designs ( a software issue ), then it doesn't matter which consoles are linked to the server.

    As an example, let's use Skyrim. Each console that runs the Skyrim Player Client receives data from the PC Skyrim Server, making a true multiplayer Skyrim possible.

    Sorry for the lengthy dissertation.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Oh where! Where fore ist thou Lego game!

    Have I not entertaineth!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    It would be interesting to try to develop a system like the one I described.

    Edit: Essentially, the game will be played over a very small local area network rather than the internet.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    John Napier 698 wrote:

    However, A solution is possible. Let us consider that modern consoles have communications ports. If there is a standard for such ports, such as Ethernet, then not only could the consoles be linked through a router, they could be connected to a computer. The computer could act as a Server, providing game data to each connected console. And if the game data is identical across multiple console designs ( a software issue ), then it doesn't matter which consoles are linked to the server.

    As an example, let's use Skyrim. Each console that runs the Skyrim Player Client receives data from the PC Skyrim Server, making a true multiplayer Skyrim possible.

    Sorry for the lengthy dissertation.

    Isn't that fairly common? That's more or less how three of us played Quake twenty years ago... just patched all the PCs together on my roommate's private server. I thought everyone did it that way.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I've never played Quake. The above is just free association based on my own knowledge. But, it's nice to have my theories validated by others. :)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    My shift at work is nearly over. Will shut my laptop down, pack it up, and go home. Good night, everyone. :)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Extra History - Warring States Japan: Sengoku Jidai


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Good night John.


    Later, John! :D


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm sad I had successfully turned a questionable thread into a comic book discussion thread instead but it got locked anyways cause of previous arguments :(

    I should just start a thread then at least it would be on topic... but what should it focus on...


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I was in the same thread and I was trying to make it a bit more friendly too.
    It was like «you are a bigot!» «who are you calling a bigot, bigot?»


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Like I said got them completely off track with comic book talk its like a gift.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Derailing done for the greater good.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    NobodysHome wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    [ooh! Ooh! Castle crashers!!

    OMG! Castle Crashers is such violent maniacal fun! But it violates so many of the requirements...

  • A teensy bit-o-gallons-o-lakes-o-blood
  • Poop-propelled deer
  • Pooping owls
  • More poop humor
  • More blood
  • And the list goes on...

  • the owl was hilarious....


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Tacticslion wrote:
    Tacticslion wrote:
    ...as an aside, an actual multiplayer RPG is very rare, and not something that comes to mind, immediately).
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    I know, right? It's odd, considering that so many rpgs are D&Dish, and so involve parties of varied characters questing about together. I'm playing Dragon Age: Origins atm, and I can't even tell ya off the top of my head how many characters make up my party! I wonder if it's some aspect of rpgs that makes multiplay hard to design, or if multiplay just hasn't taken off within the sub-genre culturally...

    It is very rare.

    My guess is that it's the cultural thing.

    Western video/computer RPGs were originally developed for low-end small consoles with poor memory and little to no rapid communication - sure two ports were even part of the NES system, but that was for simple, competitive games, mostly, and went very under-used, and forget about people lugging around their Desktop computers to do stuff.

    JRPGs, however, developed out of the same companies (and thus incorporated the same styles) that developed eroge games (a genre that really isn't meant to be, ah, "shared" with others, while playing), or who built things like, you know, the NES (and so were limited in the same way).

    These two facets also deeply affected who, exactly, the target audiences were: mostly people who played video/computer games by themselves.

    For JRPGs, this has remained solid fact - the entire concept of the genre is to build a solid (if occasionally multi-pronged) singular story that revolves around you and your own personal group. There is almost always a singular protagonist, and it's almost always the one character.

    For Western RPGs, this has opened up a bit. Things like Dark Souls which, not exactly cooperative, permit multiple people to work with (or afflict) other players.

    But both suffer from the same problem: they are on the rails games with a single-player-exclusive narrative that does not permit any but the key character(s) to...

    the family that plays eroge together stays together.

    Silver Crusade

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    Castle Crashers is available on the PS3, it's a really fun group game ^w^

    Silver Crusade

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Damn Wendy's. That was cold.

    ... okay, I'm going to be the dunce and ask someone to break this down for me. How is asking an unrelated trivia question a good clapback?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I get tired of the use of "destroyed" and "annihilated" being used for none act of destruction. Unless someone or something was disintegrated I'd prefer if they would not exaggerate so much by using those terms.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rysky wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Damn Wendy's. That was cold.
    ... okay, I'm going to be the dunce and ask someone to break this down for me. How is asking an unrelated trivia question a good clapback?

    First, and most important, you are not a dunce.

    The slap-down comes in various shades. I hope you don't mind if I break them down, as I see them!

    I may be missing some, though!

    So, as established, like the "best" clap-backs (or jokes at the expense of others), it works on multiple levels, depending on who you are and what you read into it. Some might not get all of this, and some might come up with other stuff, but this is what I read out of it.

    First, yet least relevant, is presumably showing off the fact that the Wendy's tweeter is intelligent and educated (as in, they knew this piece of trivia; the implication is, further, that it is not the only piece of trivia they know, but rather there are lots of fine details readily accessible to their intelligence), compared to the Hardee's tweeter, who, it is suggested, is less well-educated by virtue of not knowing particular facts. This is not guaranteed, and is not the main method of slamming Hardees, but it's there nonetheless.

    Second, and much more importantly, the concept of who was first is what goes down in history; it is not who came later, whether or not they 'did it better' (the suggestion being: it's irrelevant, and also wrong; see following argument), the fact that the first person to step foot on the moon is more well known means, by default, it is the more important (and thus superior) position to have. That is to say, everyone knows Niel Armstrong (and his quote), as he was the first; fewer people know Alan Bean (number four) walked on the moon, and thus, the implication goes, Mr. Armstrong did it first, and thus also best. I.e. "History will not remember the imitator." (though this is hardly fair to Mr. Alan Bean; what he went through was extremely difficult, important, and worth remembering).

    This is further a subtle relevance in that it is a minor number-pun (or whatever you call this): they are discussing a four-for-4, and the information requested was the fourth man on the moon. Not so much a "hah-hah!" pun-joke, but a (semi-)subtle tertiary link back to the topic at hand from a seemingly arbitrary topic choice.

    Regardless of the actual intent, the most powerful evidence that Hardees was shamed, was the fact that they blocked Wendy's Twitter account, seemingly in response to this tweet. This is probably the biggest source of amusement at Hardees' expense.

    I say this, for the record, as a fan of both Wendy's' and Hardees' food, and as one that had to look up Alan Bean (I wasn't sure why Rowen Atkinson's character kept coming to mind).

    EDIT: to add a quote due to ninjas, but also to add an important sentence I'd forgotten, as I was being a... dunce. XD


    Vidmaster7 wrote:
    I get tired of the use of "destroyed" and "annihilated" being used for none act of destruction. Unless someone or something was disintegrated I'd prefer if they would not exaggerate so much by using those terms.

    Agreed. That's kind of the internet's thing, though.

    (Basically, a cultural tendency shared by many, to over-inflate importance, by way of exaggeration; originally this was to combat/communicate along side of the tendency to exaggerate/trash-talk/gush over things and people; this has since been twisted as a media trick to drum up views.)

    Silver Crusade

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    *scratches head*

    Okies, thanks.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Vid, being a ninja again?
    Evil, evil you!


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    *vanishes*

    Dark Archive

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    So EPIC! In every possible way.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    That guy is really Peter Griffin!


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Vidmaster7 wrote:
    I get tired of the use of "destroyed" and "annihilated" being used for none act of destruction. Unless someone or something was disintegrated I'd prefer if they would not exaggerate so much by using those terms.

    So you are requesting for "no disintegrations"?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    NobodysHome’s Life of a Chaperone, Part VIII: An Easy Day (for once)

    So, one of the most common, perfectly-valid complaints about Disneyland is the strictly-enforced sense of "family-friendly". The staff are trained within an inch of their lives to be cheerful and friendly. The effective security (that which you cannot see) is extremely tight. It's rigid control that's Lawful Neutral with a capital 'L'. But that's what makes it really easy as a parent or chaperone. You just turn your kids loose, and you have no concerns about fights breaking out, or other lecherous teens (or even older men) harassing your girls, or whatnot. Disney is in control, and Disney will not permit any deviation from a sense of safety and security. Sucks when you're a Chaotic teen and you want to rebel against it. Great when you're a Lawful adult and all you want is for the kids to have fun without having to worry about any of the usual nonsense that occurs at fairs and theme parks nationwide. (I'm looking at you, Great America!)

    So for once I had an easy day of it...

    NobodysHome Relaxes:

    Saturday, April 8, 6:45 am - 9:00 pm

    I "slept in" as much as I could, but what can I say? I'm a morning person. This morning it was hotel room coffee (I swear they buy the dregs from the worst coffee houses on the planet, then add some grass clippings just to make it truly awful stuff), shower, sunscreen, and sitting around with time to kill for a little while until Ms. S opened up her room. Once again we provided the kids with a continental breakfast, and this time I made sure to have a couple of pastries in addition to the fruit.

    In a wonderfully-fitting punishment, Ms. S made all the kids who had made too much noise the night before call their parents, and explain to them that they had caused the hotel to send a security guard to their floor. As Ms. S put it, it was fascinating to watch the range of parenting that was going on. Many of the parents, unfortunately, had the attitude of, "So why are you calling me? Isn't it the chaperones' job to deal with that sort of thing?" Some parents actually cared, which was nice to see, and some of the teens hilariously tried to downplay their role with Ms. S right there, so there was the entertainment of:
    Wayward Teen: Oh, no, mom. It was no big deal.
    Ms. S: You had a security guard called to our floor.
    WT: OK, we had a security guard called to our floor, but we really weren't making that much noise...
    Ms. S: You were jumping on the bed.
    WT: OK, some of us were jumping on the bed, but...
    And on and on, with the teen trying to weasel out of it and Ms. S enforcing honest reporting. All kinds of hilarity.

    Worst of all were the poor teens whose parents were chaperones on the trip. One of them was relegated to the hotel room until 1 pm. Another had to travel with his mother until 1 pm. Even Ms. S asked whether it was a little odd that the kids with chaperoning parents were getting worse punishments than those without, and both mothers said, "Nope."

    As for Impus Major, we have had major issues with him failing to feed himself. (What can I say? It must run in the family!) When we first started letting him roam on his own, I'd give him $40 to buy food. He'd come back, $40 in hand, stomach growling, saying he didn't want to waste our money. So I upped it to $60. Then $100. And the boy simply would not spend money on himself, and would wander around hungry. Frustrating/proud doesn't even begin to describe the emotions of a parent whose child is so careful with money, yet so careless about his own health. So this year I gave him his annual pass, $100 in cash, and a $100 gift card, ordering him to feed himself and his friends if necessary. Unfortunately, Z was right there. That turned out to be a major mistake.

    We walked en masse over to Disneyland at around 10:00 am, and had the joy of Ms. S handing each chaperone maybe 20-30 tickets. Not to be too derogatory towards the students, but it totally reminded me of when you were a little kid at the petting zoo and your parents handed you a handful of food pellets. The animals, knowing you were a softie, swarmed over you, taking the pellets with as much force as they dared.
    Yeah, I was swarmed by eager teens hoping to get into the park as quickly as possible. It was a similar experience, and my tickets were quickly gone.

    As soon as my tickets were finished, I entered the park ahead of the other chaperones, figuring we should have at least one adult in the park. As I entered, I grabbed about two dozen maps. Yep. Hilariously, most of the kids totally missed the maps right at the entrance, came in, looked around hopelessly lost, saw me, came over, and I handed them a map. It was really pretty fun and funny.

    The park was unfortunately crowded, especially for a somewhat-overcast day, so my entire morning consisted of circling the park once, riding Haunted Mansion, and otherwise people-watching. Not an exciting morning, but perfectly pleasant. I texted the other chaperones that I'd be doing lunch at Cafe Orleans, and I met up with J, CT, and CK for a very nice lunch. Even better, there was no arguing over splitting up the bill. I paid, suggested that each person put in $20, they determined that $25 was more fair, and everything was taken care of, no muss, no fuss.

    Have I mentioned how much I love the other chaperones on these trips?

    The afternoon was similar: I wandered around, checked a few of the stores, my kids checked in with me at the appointed times, and I didn't do any more rides because the lines were too long for my tastes. At 3:30 pm I dutifully headed back to the hotel for my next "satellite car" duty: I had to drop one of the girls at LAX.

    So... brief tirade: I understand that the trip is always the weekend before spring break, so many parents take advantage of the trip to come down to L.A. and pick up their kids for a vacation, or arrange for their kids to fly out and meet them somewhere, but putting it on the chaperones to get them to the airport is really over-the-top to me. We had three separate trips to the airport to drop off three kids, and I really felt the parents should have arranged Uber or Lyft or something else, rather than relying on the chaperones to drive them. On the other hand, CK very nicely volunteered to do two of the drop-offs, so the LAX trip was the only one I had to do.

    It was an uneventful drive dropping off "Cher", a senior girl flying home to participate in another event on Sunday, especially because she was an absolute non-conversationalist. She was friendly enough, and would respond when I talked to her, but if I went silent, so did she. I dropped her off, got back to the hotel around 6:30 pm, and hightailed it into California Adventure for our 6:50 pm reservations at the Wine Country Trattoria. Amusingly enough, as I raced towards the park (I can maintain a walk at around 4.5 mph, so I'm pretty fast), I passed Ms. S and a couple of the other chaperones heading back from the hotel to the park; I wasn't the only one running late!

    We had a good dinner (I'm afraid lunch was better), once again divvying up the check was a pleasant non-issue, and I headed back to the hotel for what I figured would be a relaxing rest of the evening.

    How wrong I was...


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Hey, NH. I'm glad that you had a relatively easy day. Pace yourself, okay?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The hotel I worked at had Steep and Brew coffee. Not the best by any means, but certainly not Maxwell House.

    156,201 to 156,250 of 236,422 << first < prev | 3120 | 3121 | 3122 | 3123 | 3124 | 3125 | 3126 | 3127 | 3128 | 3129 | 3130 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Deep 6 FaWtL All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.